The Power to Veto?
An interesting, yet curious point, was raised during the last presidential debate yesterday. Bush and Kerry both wanted to make clear that neither of them would ever give anyone (outside the US) a “power to veto the security of the United States”. I find this interesting in a number of ways.
I, along with most of the world, wasn’t aware that there was any plans to introduce any new veto powers on the way the government of the United States is run. Of course, there is the UN but that only gives the US and other permenant members the power to veto UN resolutions. Perhaps there was a secret UN resolution in the works that gives a “coalition of the insanely stupid but righteous” the power to liberate those poor Americans and search for WMD.
I suspect that it has to do with the US failure to sign up to the International Courts of Justice and numerous other human rights treaties that would potentially allow an internationally appointed court to try US citizens for war crimes, amongst other things. The reference to the power to “veto the security of the US” is the fear that the US wouldn’t be able to commit various atrocities like the humiliation of POW’s and human rights violations such as Guantanamo Bay in the name of security anymore.
Again, Walter Kronkite comes to mind and what he said when he covered the Nuremburg Trials. Most of the German folks were oblivious to the mass slaughter that was going on their name. But then, it’s the duty of the citizenry to ask what is going on their name.
This fear of the power to veto the security of the US is perhaps indicative of two things. The first, most obvious conclusion, is that we are far more likely to see an increase in acts by the US that could be deemed as international crimes by the ICC. Furthermore, less biased minds could decide to actually haul George W. Bush and his administration up on war crime charges. Which, aside from being rather amusing, would be a great blow to the American public. Which explains why the candidates are stating that this will not happen even if it should.
The second is less obvious but serves as a helpful reminder that the US is actually at war. Whether it be the war on terror or the war in Iraq, with the need to state that the power to veto the security of US will not be granted to anyone and any moves to do so will be fought, it indicates that the candidates obviously feel that the citizenry of the US is fearful of this. This fear seems to me an indication that the average Joe in the US is convinced that the war on terror will be lost if this veto is given to another nation. Which, in turn, suggests that the if there is something to fear, then the US can be defeated. A cheery thought for you.
I just feel that the US is a little hypocritical (no surprise there). Before terrorism ever materialised as worry for the average US citizen, much of the world was busying itself commiting numerous acts in the name of its countries security. Britain, France, Spain, China, Iran and Russia all are countries that can probably lay claim to a list of acts done in the name of security. And there was big brother US telling us all to behave ourselves. Most repressive regimes around the world can lay claim to acts done in the name of security. Apparently, the US is no different except that it wants to get away with them.
Really, can someone please go and liberate those poor American souls?
